Re: A note to answer STRONG debaters

On Mar 11, 7:29 am, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:29:53 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bruno





<jbr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 10, 7:53 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 02:18:04 +0000 (UTC), chsw <chsw10...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Joe Bruno wrote:
On Mar 10, 7:24 am, Don Levey <Don_S...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Joe Bruno wrote:
On Mar 10, 6:58 am, Don Levey <Don_S...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Joe Bruno wrote:
Verbal aggressiveness does not always lead to physical harm.
American law distinguishes between between credible threats and those
which are not credible.
If a person who lives 2,000 miles away says he wants to punch you out,
it is not a credible threat.
If he is your next door neighbor, it would be considered credible.
You must look at the context and circumstances.
But even from 2000 miles away someone who expresses an intent to
physical violence is not likely to encourage others to respond to him,
read what he says, or treat him in a friendly manner.
--
That's true, but I was discussing the subject in a strictly legal
context.
I have a legal background and I love the law, so I sort of venture
into it whenever the opportunity presents itself.
I went to law school and was a prosecutor in the Navy.
That's also why I deal with words very precisely here.
Sometimes when I ask for proof, I'm not denying what the person said.
I'm simply doing what lawyers do.
It's become a habit with me.
Then you know, as someone who studied law (I notice that you do not say
that you're an attorney...), that mere physical proximity is not the
sole criterion for determining credibility of threat.  Other factors can
be involved, including probability of travel, the likelihood that the
victim will be or ever need to be in proximity to the accused, history
of the accused and even history of the victim as to whether the threat
caused fear, reasonable or not.  Additionally, mere words are regulated
in some localities.  Likewise, certain threats, credible or not, are
actionable if said with intent.  I'd recommend that if you don't mean
it, don't say it.

I'm not a lawyer.

I'm curious about that.  I knew several lawyers who started off
as prosecutors in the armed forces.  They all had to pass a
civilian bar exam somewhere as well as a military law exam before
their service would let them practice before courts-martial.

How could you not have been a lawyer but practiced as a prosecutor?

chsw

Not only that, but they don't have class actions in the Navy.

And just where did I say I was involved in class actions?

gFztl.12245$eT1.2...@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Jacko said that, not me.

You both did.

But I'm impressed that this time insted of just asking "where did I do
this or that?", you actually gave an explanation.  The explanation
makes it much easier to figure out, without wasting time looking in
old posts, if you are giving a denial and whether it is valid.   I
hope this represents a change in policy, but maybe it's only because
you have a good explanation for once.

I missed this one line when I had read Jacko's post.  It seems that
you were quoting Jacko, but in this post unlike all your other ones,
there is no distinction between what you wrote and what the person
quoted (Jacko) wrote.  No quoting prefix, no line indentation.  How
did that happen?  

I'm sorry I got it wrong, but the formatting of your post was the
reason.

How can anyone take your responses seriously
when you can't even tell who said what?

Everyone here except maybe you takes my responses seriously.  Better
you should worry about your own.

I don't care what your friends think about you or I, nor do I worry
about it.
Don Levey and quite a few others seem to be interested in what I say,
since they have responded at length to my posts.
I have patience and respect for Don because he deals in facts, even
though I don't support all his conclusions.
Our exchanges become heated at times, but only because we interpret
the facts differently.
That's the way law is. That's the reason Supreme Court decisions are
rarely unanimous.There is almost always the
opinion of a few Justices that dissents from the majority ruling. The
same is true for the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A note to answer STRONG debaters
    ... American law distinguishes between between credible threats and those ... I went to law school and was a prosecutor in the Navy. ... sole criterion for determining credibility of threat. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: A note to answer STRONG debaters
    ... American law distinguishes between between credible threats and those ... If a person who lives 2,000 miles away says he wants to punch you out, ... sole criterion for determining credibility of threat. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: A note to answer STRONG debaters
    ... American law distinguishes between between credible threats and those ... sole criterion for determining credibility of threat. ... Most of them don't ask for CM because the punishments available there ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: A note to answer STRONG debaters
    ... American law distinguishes between between credible threats and those ... sole criterion for determining credibility of threat. ... same is true for the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: A note to answer STRONG debaters
    ... American law distinguishes between between credible threats and those ... sole criterion for determining credibility of threat. ... etc) and acted as his accuser before the Captain of our ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
Loading